ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2022
Frequency of flash glucose monitoring and glucose metrics: real-world observational data from Saudi Arabia.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes Technology in Saudi Arabia: Current Status and Future Directions.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Real-World Data Investigating the Frequency of Flash Glucose Monitoring and Glycaemic Metrics in Omani Diabetes Patients:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of Patient-reported Satisfaction and Metabolic Outcomes Following Initiation of the Second Generation of Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes.Current diabetes reviews · 2024Observational
- Association of scan frequency with CGM-derived metrics and influential factors in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Diabetology international · 2024Article
- Adherence to glucose monitoring with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes.Endocrine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis real-world data study analyzed glucose metrics from FreeStyle Libre
methodsAnonymized reader data were analyzed according to scanning frequency quartiles, eA1c categories (<7%,≥7%‒≤9% or>9%) and TIR categories (<50%,≥50%‒≤70% or>70%). Sensors, grouped by reader, were required to have≥120 h of operation. Differences in scanning frequency, eA1c, TIR, time in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and glucose variability (standard deviation [SD] and coefficient of variation [CV]) were analyzed between groups.
results6097 readers, 35,747 sensors, and 40 million automatic glucose measurements were analyzed. Patients in the highest scanning frequency quartile (Q4, mean 32.0 scans/day) had lower eA1c (8.47%), greater TIR (46.4%) and lower glucose variation (SD 75.0 mg/dL, CV 38.2%) compared to the lowest quartile (Q1, mean 5.2 scans/day; eA1c 9.77%, TIR 32.8%, SD 94.9 mg/dL, CV 41.3%). Lower eA1c and higher TIR were associated with greater scanning frequency, lower glucose variability and less time in hyperglycemia.
conclusionsHigher scanning frequency in flash glucose users from Saudi Arabia is associated with lower eA1c, higher TIR, lower glucose variability and less time in hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.